A suggestion to improve Moderation in general

Rabidlamb

I was going to post a request about relaxing the moderation in After Hours but I've thought better of it after seeing how the few of the appeals/requests are granted.

Now we all know the flaws when the police end up policing the police & that's to be expected, self preservation is human nature.
The public image of this forum is being hurt by over-heavy moderation that seems to go unchecked.
I wont publicise your competition but Boards.ie bashing seems to be a popular topic with the main complaint being over moderation & power hungry moderators.
The process where a thread is locked on a whim while other bold blues rain in with thanks is singled out for particular ridicule.

I've been a member for 6 years & a lurker for far longer but recently I find myself coming here less & less or not bothering to post at all.
I believe that Boards.ie should trust their members more & rely on the report button to alert them to abuse or libel.
Less Moderators, ones with true fairness as their only agenda, would then be required to sort out the Helen Lovejoys from the real rule breakers.

KERSPLAT!

Rabidlamb wrote: »

I was going to post a request about relaxing the moderation in After Hours but I've thought better of it after seeing how the few of the appeals/requests are granted.

Now we all know the flaws when the police end up policing the police & that's to be expected, self preservation is human nature.
The public image of this forum is being hurt by over-heavy moderation that seems to go unchecked.
I wont publicise your competition but Boards.ie bashing seems to be a popular topic with the main complaint being over moderation & power hungry moderators.
The process where a thread is locked on a whim while other bold blues rain in with thanks is singled out for particular ridicule.

I've been a member for 6 years & a lurker for far longer but recently I find myself coming here less & less or not bothering to post at all.
I believe that Boards.ie should trust their members more & rely on the report button to alert them to abuse or libel.
Less Moderators, ones with true fairness as their only agenda, would then be required to sort out the Helen Lovejoys from the real rule breakers.

Because they've been banned from here...

Oryx

I dont mod AH, and just wandered in here, but Im interested.

Rabidlamb wrote: »

I was going to post a request about relaxing the moderation in After Hours but I've thought better of it after seeing how the few of the appeals/requests are granted.

AH used to be a 4chan wannabe cesspit of nonsense. Its actually better now.

Now we all know the flaws when the police end up policing the police & that's to be expected, self preservation is human nature.
The public image of this forum is being hurt by over-heavy moderation that seems to go unchecked.

Got examples?

I wont publicise your competition but Boards.ie bashing seems to be a popular topic with the main complaint being over moderation & power hungry moderators.

The boards ethos suits some, and not others. This place is popular. AH is very popular. Someone is doing something right.

The process where a thread is locked on a whim while other bold blues rain in with thanks is singled out for particular ridicule.

Again examples would really help your case here.

I've been a member for 6 years & a lurker for far longer but recently I find myself coming here less & less or not bothering to post at all.
I believe that Boards.ie should trust their members more & rely on the report button to alert them to abuse or libel.

And as I see it, the place couldnt operate without members helping the mods to moderate by reporting posts, and leaving feedback such as you are now. Are you saying the current mods are not doing this, or are not listening to the populace, or what?

Less Moderators, ones with true fairness as their only agenda, would then be required to sort out the Helen Lovejoys from the real rule breakers.

Keeping their particular forums hassle free is the mod agenda. What in your opinion separates a 'Helen Lovejoy' from a real rule breaker?

dr.bollocko

TBH dude you're just back off of a month ban from AH and have had problematic encounters with moderators even before that.

I'd be inclined to suggest that if I drew up a little report with suggestions on how to improve your posting in general, that wouldn't go across with you too well?

Zaph

Multiple bans for trolling and a siteban for re-regging to evade one of those bans. I'm sure you'll understand if we'd prefer not to take tips on how to improve the moderation on the site from you.

Rabidlamb

Oryx wrote: »

I dont mod AH, and just wandered in here, but Im interested. AH used to be a 4chan wannabe cesspit of nonsense. Its actually better now.

Got examples?
The boards ethos suits some, and not others. This place is popular. AH is very popular. Someone is doing something right.
Again examples would really help your case here.

And as I see it, the place couldnt operate without members helping the mods to moderate by reporting posts, and leaving feedback such as you are now. Are you saying the current mods are not doing this, or are not listening to the populace, or what?
Keeping their particular forums hassle free is the mod agenda. What in your opinion separates a 'Helen Lovejoy' from a real rule breaker?

I don't remember After Hours ever being a free for all, 4Chan is a perfect example of what happens when you go too far the wrong way.
After Hours is meant to be the home of humour & banter but instead it's just a home for general threads where the poster couldn't be bothered looking for the Economics or Atheist forums.
If it truly is meant to be the home of funny banter the WUM should be given a wider berth.

You're a big boy, you know there's derogatory opinions online about this place.
While most posters will admit to being infracted not many have admitted to sitebans, dynamic IP's & Alts limit the true effectiveness of that measure anyway.

Yes, this place is doing plenty right, I just wish it were better, I'm a fan.

I got the Helen Lovejoy comment arseways, can't even remember what I was on about.

Rabidlamb

dr.bollocko wrote: »

TBH dude you're just back off of a month ban from AH and have had problematic encounters with moderators even before that.

I'd be inclined to suggest that if I drew up a little report with suggestions on how to improve your posting in general, that wouldn't go across with you too well?

Zaph wrote: »

Multiple bans for trolling and a siteban for re-regging to evade one of those bans. I'm sure you'll understand if we'd prefer not to take tips on how to improve the moderation on the site from you.

Lets say then I'm well versed on the limits in AH.
I attempt to be a knowledgeable & sensible poster in other forums on the site.
Cause I'm not a homogenized boring poster my opinions are worth nothing ? . . .
Moderators serve to better the site, there are times when I would question this.
Look it's not my site so your rules OK but I'd hate to see this place loose the fun.

steddyeddy

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

Because they've been banned from here...

First of all I think After hours is one of the better run forums and I cant personally see a problem with moderation. The statement above is something I have to take issue with though.

This sentiment pops up again and again on here. That bascally everyone who has had a bad experience with this site has been someone who got banned from it.

I have recently had a bad experience with this site and unless I find resolution (which I wont) I will be closing my account. I haven't been a troll and have never been banned from a forum. By saying everyone who complains about the site "must have been banned" is creating that is not conducive to feedback. It's certainly extremely bad business to put down everyone who stops using your product as "trouble makers" in one way or the other.

I know from real life and other sites who have closed their accounts over unresolved issues on boards such as lack of clamping down on racism, sexism or problems with moderators. They have stopped using boards as a result, It would be extremely easy to dismiss everyone who had a problem with the site as "trouble makers" but I garuntee this sentiment cause people to close their accounts without trying to resolve issues.

Zaph

steddyeddy wrote: »

I have recently had a bad experience with this site and unless I find resolution (which I wont) I will be closing my account.

That's a couple of times you've mentioned this, yet you don't appear to have brought it to the attention of a CMod or an admin, as nesf suggested here. Obviously you won't get any resolution if we don't know what you're talking about.

steddyeddy

Zaph wrote: »

That's a couple of times you've mentioned this, yet you don't appear to have brought it to the attention of a CMod or an admin, as nesf suggested here. Obviously you won't get any resolution if we don't know what you're talking about.

I am in the process of doing that at the moment but I have tried approaching the mod in question previously with no success. Is it possible to contact an admin directly? Would it be possible to contact an Admin via boards.ie using external methods like an email?

Thanks for your time.

Zaph

steddyeddy wrote: »

I am in the process of doing that at the moment but I have tried approaching the mod in question previously with no success. Is it possible to contact an admin directly? Would it be possible to contact an Admin via boards.ie using external methods like an email?

Thanks for your time.

If you've had no joy with the mod, you should next try PMing the CMods. If you're not comfortable doing that or you still aren't satisfied with the result after contacting the CMods, then you can contact an admin. You can't contact CMods or admins via external e-mail, it would have to be via PM. Is there any particular reason you want to use e-mail?

Tombi!

I don't see much of a problem with AH at all. I'd say the only thing that can be seen as a bad job done by mods is some of the responses when they lock the threads at times but... that's nothing to me. I always took the whole "AH is like a pub" example as pretty accurate. Other than obvious serious things that have to be removed like porn or what have you, I think of it just as "lads, stupid topic, stop it before it gets out of hand".

Besides unless you're obviously trying to break the rules, I don't really see any issues. Sometimes you have a good idea for a thread which isn't going to go well, so it gets locked. PM whoever did it and see if you can post it again with their feedback on how to make it acceptable.

And any time I've looked through the dispute forum the mods/admins usually are patient enough to try their best to explain why you messed up. Better than a few other sites I've been on that the attitude is "lol no, you're wrong because you broke the rules, now go away".

steddyeddy

Zaph wrote: »

If you've had no joy with the mod, you should next try PMing the CMods. If you're not comfortable doing that or you still aren't satisfied with the result after contacting the CMods, then you can contact an admin. You can't contact CMods or admins via external e-mail, it would have to be via PM. Is there any particular reason you want to use e-mail?

Thanks for the reply. I am not comfortable contacting the Cmod in question so I will contact an admin. I wanted a corporate or contact email for boards.ie because sending an email is more official to me that private mails. I wouldnt be looking for personal email addresses of anyone on boards. If I think it's important to let the appropriate people know why I will close my account rather than get the "probably closed it because he was banned treatment".

Zaph

Well you can contact the office directly at hello@boards.ie, admins don't have a Boards e-mail address I'm afraid. There's no problem contacting an admin directly if you're not comfortable PMing the CMods.

steddyeddy

Zaph wrote: »

Well you can contact the office directly at hello@boards.ie, admins don't have a Boards e-mail address I'm afraid. There's no problem contacting an admin directly if you're not comfortable PMing the CMods.

Thanks for your help.

Zaph

You're welcome

Wibbs

Oryx wrote: »

AH used to be a 4chan wannabe cesspit of nonsense. Its actually better now.

I dunno O. Lately I'm reading this idea/meme a fair bit in relation to the After Hours of the past and how bad it was and while I would definitely agree it's gotten better, click back in time to AH of two or three or seven etc years ago and it was a long way away from a "4chan wannabe cesspit of nonsense". More your ma stuff and defo more "Irish women are fat" stuff alright, but all in all it's always been a pretty well run forum and that continues down to today. The "don't be a dick" rule has been a given for all the time I've been here and before and AH operated under that too.

Oryx

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno O. Lately I'm reading this idea/meme a fair bit in relation to the After Hours of the past and how bad it was and while I would definitely agree it's gotten better, click back in time to AH of two or three or seven etc years ago and it was a long way away from a "4chan wannabe cesspit of nonsense". More your ma stuff and defo more "Irish women are fat" stuff alright, but all in all it's always been a pretty well run forum and that continues down to today. The "don't be a dick" rule has been a given for all the time I've been here and before and AH operated under that too.

In the past if I wandered into AH it was like overhearing a conversation between giddy adolescents.

That was just my perception okay... but I was never interested in wading through the nonsense to get to something interesting so maybe I didn't try hard enough. Lately it is a hell of a lot better.

clairefontaine

After hours has a lot of comments I dont like and sometimes I wish it were more than it is, but overall I think I think it is the most likely forum where you can say what you think or say whatever even if there is no thinking in it, and not get a warning or banned. While it is sometimes painful reading, it is the freeest of the boards from what I can see.

Some of the other boards are a minefield of prohibitions and it gets pretty silly. I hope AH keeps it's obnoxiousness, though in any forum I don't like ganging up or obsessive hammering over the head of opinions.

Wibbs

Oryx wrote: »

In the past if I wandered into AH it was like overhearing a conversation between giddy adolescents.

That was just my perception okay... but I was never interested in wading through the nonsense to get to something interesting so maybe I didn't try hard enough. Lately it is a hell of a lot better.

Have a click back to I dunno 05 and what strikes me is little enough of the "bad old days" is actually in evidence. It certainly had it's moments and it's certainly better today thanks to the users and the mods building it, but I still broadly disagree with the "god it was so awful" idea that seems to have a lot of currency at the moment. What I have noticed is that it's a "broader church" these days. More wider ranging threads that might have been started in Humanities(remember when humanities was a much more popular forum) now show up in AH. Plus an odd one, the thread titles in AH today tend to be longer. Back in the day they were usually three or four words long. Have a look, mad.

Sully

With moderating, you can't please everybody. A lot of people, in my experience, want a 'free for all' type of discussion board where anything goes. Boards has never been that type of site and should never be. Those type of sites generally don't last or have a piss poor reputation. Plus, Boards is now heading in a more commercial route so I am sure businesses wouldn't want to be on a site advocating a 'free for all' either.

Iv noticed that if your too relaxed, people moan and if you try and come down harder, people complain. There doesn't seem to be a happy medium - whatever a mod does, some people will always be upset by it. With a site this big, that's normal.

I always like to remind people that if moderation was heavy handed on this site, than it wouldn't be anywhere near as popular as it is and it wouldn't be growing as rapidly as it currently is.

hullaballoo

Modding in general is difficult but AH is notoriously difficult to mod.


If you think that it's over-modded then you should think about subscribing to other sites because boards is what it is and AH has to be heavily moderated because of the liability for it to become the cesspit mentioned above. It's also noteworthy that it's way easier to lock a thread than to move a thread and that might explain why threads that could be put elsewhere are just locked.


Also, mods do their work for free so you should give them a break.

mathepac

hullaballoo wrote: »

... Also, mods do their work for free so you should give them a break.

I've challenged this idea before on boards.ie and I will continue to.

If a job is worth doing at all, it's worth doing well. As I wrote before, I worked as an unpaid part-time volunteer for many years and had the same metrics and delivery standards to meet as the full-time professionals. I also got the same training, but obviously this was task-focussed around the half-day / week I worked. The professionals got much more broadly based training.

The moderation standards are very poor IMO and moderators seem to be selectively blind, deaf, and dumb to what goes on in threads and it seems to me have carte blanche to be sarcastic, uncivil, and so on in their posts when dishing out the warnings cards. They are also partial and cut fellow mods tons of slack about ad hominem attacks. When I pont this out I get reprimanded for not complying with the charter.

I've complained about this and I've been asked to submit a "report post" thingy. FFS why? Scroll back 3 or 4 posts and there's the evidence you failed to notice.

It's all gone too civil servicey. "A Cara, I didn't receive your form A, duly completed and signed, so therefore the alleged incident never happened from my perspective. Mis Le Meas Mor, A Bone Idle Jobsworth".

I could go on but there is no point; nothing changed before, nothing will change this time

Insect Overlord

I love the smell of vague whining in the morning...

K-9

steddyeddy wrote: »

First of all I think After hours is one of the better run forums and I cant personally see a problem with moderation. The statement above is something I have to take issue with though.

This sentiment pops up again and again on here. That bascally everyone who has had a bad experience with this site has been someone who got banned from it.

I doubt anybody thinks that, it is a fair point in relation to the OP and other sites, the more noisy critics would tend to be site banned or a long history, I've no doubt some have valid concerns, we also get compliments on other sites, but we don't tend to hear about that.

Often it is just down to different styles, politics.ie a good example, it suits some people, boards others, most people seem to get that and get on with it, a minority take that very personally, multiple re-reging and what not to prove some point.

mathepac wrote: »

The moderation standards are very poor IMO and moderators seem to be selectively blind, deaf, and dumb to what goes on in threads and it seems to me have carte blanche to be sarcastic, uncivil, and so on in their posts when dishing out the warnings cards. They are also partial and cut fellow mods tons of slack about ad hominem attacks. When I pont this out I get reprimanded for not complying with the charter.

That's a tad generalistic and not much feedback within it without some examples. I certainly don't see amateurism like you is trying to depict. You really should know by now that commenting on moderation in thread, throughout the site, is only going to end one way, a new poster I'd understand, but a seasoned one?

As for AH, it's a tough forum to mod, trying to balance free speech, unpopular opinions, cut out the trolls and offensive stuff and everything else. I think there is a good balance between serious and funny threads, there's a demand for serious topics going on the post count. It really is back to the cliche that nobody forces you to post in popular topics that you don't like, and going into threads to complain about their existence, as some do, seems tantrumish to me.

Esoteric_

There's very little I can add to points that K-9 and others have made but I'll say this -

Having used boards (and a few bigger sites) for years, the moderation here is MUCH more consistent than any site I've been on.

The fact of the matter is, you'll always have people who want tougher moderation, and you'll have people who want more lax moderation. How can you expect the mods, especially of a forum such as AH, to win, when faced with opposition no matter what way they play things?

Moderation isn't easy. I thought it was, til I started HModding, and even then, HModding is probably a piece of píss in comparison to moderating AH! :pac:

At the end of the day, not everybody is going to be happy with the rules. But I've noticed that the polite, friendly, respectful posters manage to enjoy the site without racking up infractions and bans. If they can do it, so can anybody else. If you behave, you should have no cause for complaint about modding, in general (obviously there are exceptions and mistakes are made).

oscarBravo

mathepac wrote: »

As I wrote before, I worked as an unpaid part-time volunteer for many years and had the same metrics and delivery standards to meet as the full-time professionals.

[...]

I've complained about this and I've been asked to submit a "report post" thingy. FFS why? Scroll back 3 or 4 posts and there's the evidence you failed to notice.

It's all gone too civil servicey. "A Cara, I didn't receive your form A, duly completed and signed, so therefore the alleged incident never happened from my perspective. Mis Le Meas Mor, A Bone Idle Jobsworth".

Just so we're clear, you expect our volunteers to conform to the metrics and delivery standards of full-time professionals, but you refuse use the tools we've put in place to help them to do their job effectively?

The Hill Billy

mathepac wrote: »

...I could go on but there is no point; nothing changed before, nothing will change this time

And yet you are still here using this site. It can't be all that bad then... (???)

mathepac

Insect Overlord wrote: »

I love the smell of vague whining in the morning...

Thank you, you make my case very eloquently. If I'd posted a similar remark a mod would have already posted a warning if not issued a card about trolls (people who make OT posts purely to elicit a reaction from the targeted poster) not being welcome and uncivil / immature posts not being wanted on AH or at least an exhortation to stay on topic.

So why is the quoted post / poster treated differently?

On numerous occasions I have deliberately prefixed posts with words like "In relation to your post..." or "I find your post ..." or "The content of your post is ..." and have received warnings , cards because the mods concerned can't distinguish between ad hominem attacks and debate or discussion.

This is trolling -

Insect Overlord wrote: »

I love the smell of vague whining in the morning...

so when can I see the poster taken to task or will the thread topic " A suggestion to improve Moderation in general" just be ignored on a whim, as the post concerned certainly doesn't fit with the thread?

Insect Overlord

mathepac wrote: »

Thank you, you make my case very eloquently. If I'd posted a similar remark a mod would have already posted a warning if not issued a card about trolls (people who make OT posts purely to elicit a reaction from the targeted poster) not being welcome and uncivil / immature posts not being wanted on AH or at least an exhortation to stay on topic.

Last night you posted this:

mathepac wrote: »

The moderation standards are very poor IMO and moderators seem to be selectively blind, deaf, and dumb to what goes on in threads and it seems to me have carte blanche to be sarcastic, uncivil, and so on in their posts when dishing out the warnings cards. They are also partial and cut fellow mods tons of slack about ad hominem attacks. When I pont this out I get reprimanded for not complying with the charter.

It's vague and all-encompassing, tarring the moderation of every single unique forum on the site with the one brush. You offered no examples. Feck it, you didn't even put forward an anecdote! It's petty and immature and will add nothing to the original point put forward in the OP.

In short, it was a whine. A whinge. All sound and fury, signifying nothing. I gave it all the attention it deserved.

mathepac wrote: »

This is trolling - so when can I see the poster taken to task or will the thread topic " A suggestion to improve Moderation in general" just be ignored on a whim, as the post concerned certainly doesn't fit with the thread?

Furthermore, your approach to dealing with problems (as you see them) would be infinitely improved if you took the advice given to you (several times, apparently) before now.

mathepac wrote: »

I've complained about this and I've been asked to submit a "report post" thingy. FFS why? Scroll back 3 or 4 posts and there's the evidence you failed to notice.

Instead you seem happier to back-seat moderate, call people out on-thread, bitch about little problems and then complain when nobody takes you seriously. Use the available tools. Report problematic posts. Highlight them so that the mods can look at things in isolation as well as in context.

Because, in the context of your reply this afternoon, I reckon my little quip last night wasn't far off the mark at all.

mathepac

K-9 wrote: »

... That's a tad generalistic and not much feedback within it without some examples. I certainly don't see amateurism like you is trying to depict. You really should know by now that commenting on moderation in thread, throughout the site, is only going to end one way, a new poster I'd understand, but a seasoned one? ...

I have already given lots of specifics, having used the "Report a Post" facility. I have requested mod feedback for posters who use the "Report a Post" button. This was in order to close the loop back to the reporter in order for him to understand the reasoning behind inaction from the mods.

This generated the usual predictable responses, combined with hands thrown in the air, "Oh the mods won't like it", "The mods aren't paid, they work for free" - the usual tat. I don't care if they don't like it. A closed loop feedback system is the only way to make improvements in a setting such as this so that all decision-making is transparent. Train them to do it without sarcasm, ad hominem attacks or trolling, like moderator post I commented on above.

When a poster fails to see action on a reported post and gets no feedback as to why, the options open to him are few. I ask in the thread why there was no action or complain that there was no action / feedback. What's the alternative if I want to improve moderation on the site?

I suppose I could try posting in one of these threads if I knew tey were going to be kept troll-free or that the charter would be upheld.

mathepac

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just so we're clear, you expect our volunteers to conform to the metrics and delivery standards of full-time professionals, but you refuse use the tools we've put in place to help them to do their job effectively?

Hhmmm, just to be very clear I never wrote that. Do you have a question you want to ask me?

Cabaal

mathepac wrote: »

Hhmmm, just to be very clear I never wrote that. Do you have a question you want to ask me?

Not exactly in those words but you did say

I've complained about this and I've been asked to submit a "report post" thingy. FFS why? Scroll back 3 or 4 posts and there's the evidence you failed to notice.

Report post exists for a reason, if PM'ing a mod directly was the way to raise an issue then the report post function wouldn't exist.

Instead report posts does exist, it creates a record of the report and it is seen by all mods on the forum (not just the one you decide to PM directly).

K-9

mathepac wrote: »

I have already given lots of specifics, having used the "Report a Post" facility. I have requested mod feedback for posters who use the "Report a Post" button. This was in order to close the loop back to the reporter in order for him to understand the reasoning behind inaction from the mods.

This generated the usual predictable responses, combined with hands thrown in the air, "Oh the mods won't like it", "The mods aren't paid, they work for free" - the usual tat. I don't care if they don't like it. A closed loop feedback is the only way to make improvements in a setting such as this so all decision-making is transparent. Train them to do it with sarcasm, ad hominem attacks or trolling, like moderator post I commented on above.

Those are all valid reasons.

When a poster fails to see action on a reported post and gets no feedback as to why, the options open to him are few. I ask in the thread why there was no action or complain that there was no action / feedback. What's the alternative if I want to improve moderation on the site.

I suppose I could try posting in one of these threads if I knew tey were going to be kept troll-free or that the chater would be enforced.

You could always pm a mod, it might take time to get a response though. As long as you don't want a long winded debate about it, I'd pm back. Plus trolling is a subjective thing, it's often thrown around far too easily, just a personal swipe to try and dismiss an opinion.

Dr Silly Bollox MD

Insect Overlord wrote: »

I love the smell of vague whining in the morning...

I read this and knew it was you before looking at your name.

Insect Overlord

Dr Silly Bollox MD wrote: »

I read this and knew it was you before looking at your name.

And who did you used to be?

mathepac

Cabaal wrote: »

Not exactly in those words but you did say ...

Thanks for that but I'm aware of what I typed.

Cabaal wrote: »

... Report post exists for a reason, if PM'ing a mod directly was the way to raise an issue then the report post function wouldn't exist. ...

Some confusion here. When I click "Report a Post" I have no idea who gets to ignore my message. The only time I can PM a mod from a thread is if they contact me first.

Cabaal wrote: »

... Instead report posts does exist, it creates a record of the report and it is seen by all mods on the forum (not just the one you decide to PM directly). ...

Again, I'm confused. I can't contact a mod directly from a thread as I have no idea who to write to. If I "Report a Post" presumably the process is it gets directed to the "duty mod" for that forum at that time and I have no way of knowing that. So if I, for example send a report saying "Spam?" unless a mod posts in the thread that they have edited / deleted the post I can't know who the mod is.

Cabaal wrote: »

... If you don't like it then hard luck, its the process thats setup and its the process that works. Just because you appear to have an issue with mods doesn't mean that they as a whole do not work on boards.ie

I don't like the way certain things are done on boards.ie and if it's just "hard luck" on me, why pretend that "Feedback" is a way of discussing what needs changing and why?

I have issues with the lack of even-handedness and transparency on boards.ie and a general laissez-faire attitude about the charter. "Oh we know what it says all right, but you don't really think we are guided by it do you? It's really just for the plebs. Toddle on there, let us get back to our tea and biccies."

mathepac

Insect Overlord wrote: »

... It's vague and all-encompassing, .

Even if any of what you wrote was fact rather than merely opinion, none of it explains why no-one took action on a post which was clearly trolling; that was my point to you.

[EDIT: Timing delays due to a very slow connection today; sorry]

Rabidlamb

I'm satisfied enough with the feedback to my OP.
Mods are volunteers with the sites best interest at heart, tough enough job for a legal professional let alone a normal member of the public.
People are different hence interpretations will be different no matter how homogenized the system is.
It's not perfect but it's the best we have.

Would I do it ?, no, says enough.[doffs cap]

oscarBravo

mathepac wrote: »

Hhmmm, just to be very clear I never wrote that.

Which part do you want to row back on? The demand for professional standards from our volunteers, or the refusal to use the tools we've made available to help them do their job?

mathepac

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which part do you want to row back on? ...

I have no wish to row back on something I didn't write.

johnr1

One simple improvement which would cost boards.ie nothing and virtually no time to implement would be for the site owners to give a clear directive to mods and their superior versions to leave out the smartarsery when responding to bad behaviour.

This one change would lead to a change in the volume of complaints about modding, because what irks many of us most of all about mod behaviour is this constant smartarsery and pot-shooting which we can't respond to on pain of being banned.

mathepac

Very good point @johnr1.

I PM's a guy with "Moderator" in his little id box about comments he had made in a thread, saying I felt he was setting a very poor example. The response I got was he was not a moderator of that forum, he was just a poster. My take on that was "You can't do as I do, you do as I tell you".

Dr Silly Bollox MD

johnr1 wrote: »

One simple improvement which would cost boards.ie nothing and virtually no time to implement would be for the site owners to give a clear directive to mods and their superior versions to leave out the smartarsery when responding to bad behaviour.

This one change would lead to a change in the volume of complaints about modding, because what irks many of us most of all about mod behaviour is this constant smartarsery and pot-shooting which we can't respond to on pain of being banned.

yea, I'd +1 this.

It's being brought up a few times now at this stage.

Esoteric_

Mods only moderate certain fora, not the whole site. Why should they have to refrain from posting like any other poster in, say, ah, when they mod consumer issues?

If somebody is too lazy to read the forum/s they moderate underneath their username, that's your own look out.

Mods were/are chosen for certain forums because of their contributions to that forum. Why should they stop being a normal poster just because they mod a specific forum? It's sad enough as it is that some mods have stated that they post less all over the site as a result of becoming a mod.

Nody

mathepac wrote: »

Very good point @johnr1.

I PM's a guy with "Moderator" in his little id box about comments he had made in a thread, saying I felt he was setting a very poor example. The response I got was he was not a moderator of that forum, he was just a poster. My take on that was "You can't do as I do, you do as I tell you".

Then you seem to lack an understanding how things work here even after your 3.5k posts; a moderator (such as myself) is for all intent and purpose a normal user in every single forum on this site excluding the forum I mod (World of Tanks in my case as listed under my name).

I have no obligation to set any example or be the A poster outside my forum; in fact if I'd go to any forum and post "Jews are controlling the world" or "All Corkies can't play rugby" (examples picked to be inflammatory and don't represent my view and are only intended to give an extreme version of what'd be infractable at least) I'd be sanctioned as any other poster. In fact I'd risk more then a normal poster because as a mod I'm expected to keep things "with in the policy" so to speak so if I start to pick up infractions I may lose the mod role (and before you ask yes Mods have lost their roles over it).

So the PM you got back from the Mod was correct; he may be a Mod in forum X but that don't mean he needs to behave like a Mod in every forum.

mathepac

Esoteric_ wrote: »

Mods only moderate certain fora, not the whole site. Why should they have to refrain from posting like any other poster in, say, ah, when they mod consumer issues? ...

My post refers not to the fact that he posted, but what and how he posted as "... I felt he was setting a very poor example ...".

Esoteric_ wrote: »

... If somebody is too lazy to read the forum/s they moderate underneath their username, that's your own look out. ...

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but I don't moderate on this site and I'd assume I don't need to tell a moderator where their forum is.

As with any responsible job, there is a certain standard of behaviour expected even if that person is "off duty". For example, would it be appropriate to see a drug and alcohol counsellor pissed out of his head at week-ends, snorting coke in the jacks and starting fights or drink-driving? If your job has a certain standing in the eyes of a community then part of the job is to protect that standing.

Esoteric_ wrote: »

... Why should they stop being a normal poster just because they mod a specific forum? ...

I never suggested that. This is the old straw man trick practised in a few forums, including here. Get the poor sap to defend a statement he didn't make, that'll teach him to dare voice an opinion we didn't give him.

Esoteric_ wrote: »

... It's sad enough as it is that some mods have stated that they post less all over the site as a result of becoming a mod.

It's hardly my fault they failed to appreciate the possible consequences of their new responsibilities. However your statement might go some way to explaining the point I'm raising, if there are frustrated mods who in reality would prefer to be marginally correct AH posters.

mathepac

Nody wrote: »

... he may be a Mod in forum X but that don't mean he needs to behave like a Mod in every forum.

I disagree; see above.

Nody

mathepac wrote: »

I disagree; see above.

You're of course free to disagree but that don't change boards stated policy on required mod behaviour.

You talk about work related comparison but you see myself, the other mods, CMods and Admins don't get paid doing this "job" (though I could have sworn I saw Zaph hide some cookies last night!). A more appropiate comparison would be if to state we're a football coach for juniors (lets say 5 to 8 years). If we started drinking heavily before the match, swearing at the kids and not walking straight (i.e. in appropiate behaviour) we'd be having a talk to and possibly get kicked which we'd get infracted for as per my example above by going over the line.

Now if the same football coach was out downtown and drinking on his spare time on a Friday wobbling around down and up on the street it has nothing to do with the fact he's a perfectly good football coach every Sunday game. If a parent would approach him and complain about his drinking on Friday night and that he's not a perfect rolemodel that's perfectly ok; however if the football club don't have provisions stating he should be a rolemodel at all times even outside his coaching role (and boards do not) then he'd be perfectly fine in stating that he's a private individual doing what he wants on his spare time.

Same holds true on boards; outside our modded forums we're just another user and our posts should be judged on the same scale as any other user's posts. Now some people do not and think if you're a mod that means you always have to be teachers pet and be perfect which causes some to post less but that's not boards listed policy, that's self censure to make your fellow mods life easier which should not be needed.

Delirium

mathepac wrote: »

My post refers not to the fact that he posted, but what and how he posted as "... I felt he was setting a very poor example ...".
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but I don't moderate on this site and I'd assume I don't need to tell a moderator where their forum is.

As with any responsible job, there is a certain standard of behaviour expected even if that person is "off duty". For example, would it be appropriate to see a drug and alcohol counsellor pissed out of his head at week-ends, snorting coke in the jacks and starting fights or drink-driving? If your job has a certain standing in the eyes of a community then part of the job is to protect that standing.
I never suggested that. This is the old straw man trick practised in a few forums, including here. Get the poor sap to defend a statement he didn't make, that'll teach him to dare voice an opinion we didn't give him.
It's hardly my fault they failed to appreciate the possible consequences of their new responsibilities. However your statement might go some way to explaining the point I'm raising, if there are frustrated mods who in reality would prefer to be marginally correct AH posters.

If the post made by the mod was posted by a non-mod, would you have a problem with it? Would you have PM-ed a non-mod to tell them they were "setting a poor example"? Why shouldn't a poster (who happens to mod a different forum on boards) not be able to post as they like providing they don't breach the charter? They shouldn't have to hand in their personality when they get the mod tags.

The best description I've seen of mods here is they're essentially janitors. They generally are there to resolve problems with spammers/trolls/problem posters/potential defamation issues etc.

Outside of their forums, they're regular posters like the rest of us.

Dravokivich

mathepac wrote: »

As with any responsible job, there is a certain standard of behaviour expected even if that person is "off duty". For example, would it be appropriate to see a drug and alcohol counsellor pissed out of his head at week-ends, snorting coke in the jacks and starting fights or drink-driving? If your job has a certain standing in the eyes of a community then part of the job is to protect that standing.

Sensationalise much? You are taking whatever has happened way out of context.